Sir William Gull

[Lewis C]

So nothing at all comes to mind about working on a human body uninhibited to further medical science ?

Not much imagination.

Yes, I can't imagine how any of the murders, with the possible but unlikely exception of Kelly's, could have furthered medical science, if the mutilations have nothing to do with it. Keeping in mind that he couldn't have removed the organs without mutilating, and aside from Kelly, he only spent a few minutes with the victims. If that means that I don't have much imagination, then please aid my limited imagination by telling me how the murders could have furthered medical science.

More importantly though is that what you're doing here is imagining a possible motive that Gull could have had. So even if what you're imagining is a reasonable possibility, it's the case for any suspect that they could have a motive that we don't know about. The only reason I'm talking about motive is that you brought it up. Motive is usually something I don't pay much attention to in comparing suspects in this case, because I think the probable motive is that the killer got sexual pleasure from mutilating, and there's no telling who might have that motive.

[A P Tomlinson]

You give the Royal Conspiracy too much credit.

* A group of semi-homeless alcoholic prostitutes decide to blackmail the British government over something provably false.
* The British government decides this is a serious threat to the monarchy.
* They assign as killers a man who wasn't in England, an elderly stroke victim, and a coachman.
* The men assigned to eliminate the blackmailers decide the best way to do this is murder them in a way that turns the women from nobodies to household names, implicates the Masons, and undermines public confidence in the authorities.
* The British government agrees this is the best way to quietly and secretly eliminate the blackmailers.
* The victims fail to notice or respond when only members of their blackmail club are being messily butchered by the Ripper.
* Over a year after the doctor stops murdering and leaving clues implicating the Masons, the Conspiracy decides he is a threat to them.
* Though the doctor is well known in the medical community and pictures of him have appeared in the print, the Conspiracy decides to fake the doctor's death and put him in an asylum instead of killing him.
* The painter betrays the Conspiracy by spending the next several decades leaving clues in his paintings and hiding a child from them, but makes no attempt to flee or hide his identity.
* The Conspiracy, who have the resources of the entire British Empire, send only the lone coachman after the painter and the child.
* When after over a decade of failure, the world's most inept assassin gets run over by his own carriage, the Conspiracy does not replace him.
* The painter lives for 4 more decades, untouched by the Conspiracy.

It's total nonsense that requires everyone involved to be an inept idiot even before we consider that the source of the story admitted it was a hoax.

I was doing my best to try and be generous...
Saying "We all know the Royal Conspiracy is a steaming pile of Horse ****" would have been more accurate, but it invites the sort of distracting remarks that tend to begin "Are you saying..." and paraphrase your comment in a way that tries to discredit the position, in an attempt to ignore the substance and focus on turning the discussion away from the subject by steering the conversation toward the etymology of manure.

[FISHY1118]

Yes, I can't imagine how any of the murders, with the possible but unlikely exception of Kelly's, could have furthered medical science, if the mutilations have nothing to do with it. Keeping in mind that he couldn't have removed the organs without mutilating, and aside from Kelly, he only spent a few minutes with the victims. If that means that I don't have much imagination, then please aid my limited imagination by telling me how the murders could have furthered medical science.

. So even if what you're imagining is a reasonable possibility, it's the case for any suspect that they could have a motive that we don't know about. The only reason I'm talking about motive is that you brought it up. Motive is usually something I don't pay much attention to in comparing suspects in this case, because I think the probable motive is that the killer got sexual pleasure from mutilating, and there's no telling who might have that motive.

''then please aid my limited imagination by telling me how the murders could have furthered medical science''.

I didnt say the murders themselves could futher medical science, but the way in which the organs can be removed in different ways and or methods.


''More importantly though is that what you're doing here is imagining a possible motive that Gull could have had''

Im not ''imagining'' a possible motive, merely suggesting one that Gull might have had . Theres never been a murder without one .

[FISHY1118]

Druitt, while raised as a sideline, isn't the topic of the thread, Gull is. But, as I said, it's not about the strength or weakness of the case McNaughten hints at, but rather the fact that Druitt does get named as a suspect in the case by the police. Whether McNaughten's reasons amount to nothing more than hot air or he at one time had in his possession factual proof of Druitt's guilt we will never know. But Druitt gets a mention by the police - Gull gets crickets.

In short, Druitt is of interest because he is mentioned. Gull, apart from the made up Royal Conspiracy story, has no reason to be looked at with connection to the JtR murders other than he was still alive at the time. One could draw a name at random out of the census and claim "my suspect, Randy Badman, is just as good a suspect as Gull" and not be telling a lie.

Basically, people don't have to prove Gull is not involved, rather, one has to present a reason to consider him - a reason based upon facts not speculation. Druitt is named by the police as a possible JtR, that's a fact, hence he gets a look. Gull ... I can't think of a reason why one would look at him based upon what we know about him. There's nothing that ties him to the JtR murders, and as far as I know, his name doesn't ever come up in any communications even in a tangential way.

It just looks very much like he was simply drawn from the census at random, and then accused of being a very naughty boy.

- Jeff

''Whether McNaughten's reasons amount to nothing more than hot air or he at one time had in his possession factual proof of Druitt's guilt we will never know''


''His own family believed him to be the killer ''was probably an off the cuff remark by Mac then , seeings how at this point in time, prove its authenticity .

[JeffHamm]

''Whether McNaughten's reasons amount to nothing more than hot air or he at one time had in his possession factual proof of Druitt's guilt we will never know''


''His own family believed him to be the killer ''was probably an off the cuff remark by Mac then , seeings how at this point in time, prove its authenticity .

Hi Fishy,

As I say, we will never know because, according to McNaughten, he himself destroyed what he had (which sounds like written documents). However, I would not go so far as to say it was "probably an off the cuff remark", rather that is one extreme of the range of situations we would have to consider. I rather doubt his claims were without any foundation, on the other hand, I also rather doubt whatever it was that brought Druitt to his attention was conclusive or something that would be considered "evidence" in a court of law. We know Andersen was aware of McNaughten's idea, and was of the opinion it didn't amount to much, so that probably rules out anything spectacular like a bloody knife, or written confession, etc. Rather, by the sounds of it, he heard third hand from someone that Druitt's family may have had some concerns (McNaughten's phrase is that he has little doubt about the family's suspicions - I think I have the exact wording wrong, but the gist is there), so it seems to me that whomever McNaughten spoke to there is a good argument to be made that the person was not of Druitt's family, but probably someone who knows them in some capacity. In short, I think it is safe to say that McNaughten was given some sort of information, and that information made him consider Druitt, and also it was enough to raise his suspicions but given Druitt was dead, those suspicions could not be tested. However, as the murders ceased (in his view) with Druitt's death, those suspicions appear to have become confirmed in his mind. That's not "off the cuff", but it is also not "conclusive proof" either, and so other members of the police were free to formulate their own personal preferences as to their favourite suspect. Were any of them correct? Maybe, but maybe not.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Gull's little mate Sutton was JtR.
He was not caught because all Hell would have broken out,given his connections.
The police knew,Phillips knew,staff at London Hospital knew.Crikey,a trainee nun knew.
Whole mess goes back to when Sutton was Vestry Medical Officer and a young Mary Ann Kelly was a member of that church.

[GBinOz]

Hi Fishy,

As I say, we will never know because, according to McNaughten, he himself destroyed what he had (which sounds like written documents). However, I would not go so far as to say it was "probably an off the cuff remark", rather that is one extreme of the range of situations we would have to consider. I rather doubt his claims were without any foundation, on the other hand, I also rather doubt whatever it was that brought Druitt to his attention was conclusive or something that would be considered "evidence" in a court of law. We know Andersen was aware of McNaughten's idea, and was of the opinion it didn't amount to much, so that probably rules out anything spectacular like a bloody knife, or written confession, etc. Rather, by the sounds of it, he heard third hand from someone that Druitt's family may have had some concerns (McNaughten's phrase is that he has little doubt about the family's suspicions - I think I have the exact wording wrong, but the gist is there), so it seems to me that whomever McNaughten spoke to there is a good argument to be made that the person was not of Druitt's family, but probably someone who knows them in some capacity. In short, I think it is safe to say that McNaughten was given some sort of information, and that information made him consider Druitt, and also it was enough to raise his suspicions but given Druitt was dead, those suspicions could not be tested. However, as the murders ceased (in his view) with Druitt's death, those suspicions appear to have become confirmed in his mind. That's not "off the cuff", but it is also not "conclusive proof" either, and so other members of the police were free to formulate their own personal preferences as to their favourite suspect. Were any of them correct? Maybe, but maybe not.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

So McNaughten is saying " I have absolute proof of what I am saying, which I am now destroying....because I don't want to defend my absolute proof". Odd, to say the least.

IMHO, McNaughten is an textbook example of the Peter Principle - a man promoted into a position for which he possesses no semblance of competence. JMO

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Gull's little mate Sutton was JtR.
He was not caught because all Hell would have broken out,given his connections.
The police knew,Phillips knew,staff at London Hospital knew.Crikey,a trainee nun knew.
Whole mess goes back to when Sutton was Vestry Medical Officer and a young Mary Ann Kelly was a member of that church.

Hi Dave,

I often think of you, and your battle with fibromyalgia. I hope that you are receiving some relief from the constant pain. Can you update us on your attempts and hopes for a book or film on your theory? I would like to see a thread on your theory, but understand that this could impact on any aforementioned projects.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

So McNaughten is saying " I have absolute proof of what I am saying, which I am now destroying....because I don't want to defend my absolute proof". Odd, to say the least.

IMHO, McNaughten is an textbook example of the Peter Principle - a man promoted into a position for which he possesses no semblance of competence. JMO

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I'm unaware of him every saying he has "absolute proof", only that he destroyed what proof he had. That suggests to me that the "proof" is only "proof he was told", not "proof with regards to the crime", as he would be aware that what he was told was "scuttle but" rather than evidence for a court to examine. If it was evidence, as we think of it, I am pretty sure he would not have destroyed it, and if he did, he would not announce it. As such, what he destroyed must have been something that would not be useful in a court, but might cause embarrassment to the person who contacted him (or perhaps the Druitt family).

I think the information he received was of a nature that would not build a case, but rather pointed suspicion which any decent lawyer would be able to argue was "unfounded". Doesn't mean it wasn't valid, only that it wasn't definitive, and could be viewed as nothing more than rumour (due to lack of proper physical evidence, etc). It makes Druitt interesting, but in my view, only because he gets mentioned at the time. My personal view, which isn't worth much, is that Druitt was unlikely to be JtR, and his cricket schedule just about clears him. But because he was mentioned at the time, we are obliged to consider him until that last window gets closed. It's just about there, but until it is closed, he's worth a punt, but he's a 25:1 horse in my books.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

I often think of you, and your battle with fibromyalgia. I hope that you are receiving some relief from the constant pain. Can you update us on your attempts and hopes for a book or film on your theory? I would like to see a thread on your theory, but understand that this could impact on any aforementioned projects.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Still seeking a suitable screenwriter.Most of my theory is on Casebook.I'll add a little below ......

As previously mentioned,RLS' novella was based on Gull and Sutton.Here is where he "found" the names ......

Walter Jekyll - Wikipedia

Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon - Wikipedia

Mary Ann Kelly has been covered,local lass of 29."Trampled" by Mr Hyde when a child.

Stupid OT had me do something dumb which put me in hospital twice.Been on a walking frame for 16 months.

Thanks Buddy.

[Fiver]

As previously mentioned,RLS' novella was based on Gull and Sutton.

That makes no sense. Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was published two years before the Ripper murders started.

[DJA]

And returned as a stage play just before the murders.

[DJA]

John Addington Symonds

Symonds was shocked by the book, writing to Stevenson that "viewed as an allegory, it touches one too closely."^[14] - Wikipedia

[Fiver]

And returned as a stage play just before the murders.

That further proves my point. How could Stevenson be alluding to events that hadn't happened yet?

[DJA]

The stage play was the catalyst for the murders.